Talk:Administration (law)/Archives/2018
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Merge request
There are a couple of different merge requests, and I think there is a risk of things getting a little blurry. So apologies if I set my views out in some length:
- Receivership and administrative receivership are very similar, and should largely be covered by the same article (as they are at present). Admin receivership is just a subset of the wider form of receivership.
- However, administration orders are something quite different. I appreciate that under UK insolvency law, admin orders have largely taken the place of administrative receivership (but not wider forms of receivership) but in most other common law countries they remain pretty firmly separate.
- Similarly, I don't think examinership should get merged in. It is just a different legal concept. Same sort of aim, but different legal system and different requirements. If we wanted to wrap everything similar in, we would also sling US chapter 11 in there.
So in short, I am against both merge proposals for the above reasons.
--Legis (talk - contribs) 19:23, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
Not only in common law system
As least in Italy, insolvent banks could be under A.S. ("special administration") by the Italian Government and the Bank of Italy as the actual administrator. Matthew hk (talk) 17:42, 9 December 2018 (UTC)